Tag Archives: ocean shipping

Upcoming European tsunami

I never heard of the European Union’s taxonomy regulation before.

It’s designed to increase investment in green economic activities, and discourage investment in environmentally sensitive ones. Essentially it codifies the Poseidon Principles into an EU policy.

The term ‘taxonomy’ comes from the intent to classify investments with regard to a number of criteria. In other words, you can’t call an investment ‘green’ unless it speaks to these issues, and meets established criteria.

According to the author, the taxonomy regulation has several main environmental points, as well as social ones:

  • climate change mitigation
  • climate change adaptation
  • sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources
  • transition to a circular economy
  • pollution prevention and control
  • protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems.

The author is a bit concerned that the regulation will give non-European companies an advantage in pursuing shipping investments. And he’s worried about the effect on shipping finance, though he supports the idea of green investment. He just thinks there will be a time of disruption in the financing of maritime activities, with good long-term effects but some short-range dislocation.

That dislocation could affect supply chains in general. For instance, slower steaming will effectively reduce the capacity on main shipping lanes. And the fact that newbuild years are booked two or more years ahead will prevent faster turnover or augmentation of the fleet with cleaner ships.

Nonetheless, adoption will clarify what a green investment means, and will reduce greenwashing— publicizing efforts that are relatively small improvements as major contributions to environmental improvement. And, especially in Europe, it will put down a marker for firms and individuals to reach for.

Dagfinn Lunde April 21, 2022

Upcoming European tsunami – Splash247

US regulator probing China’s role in container shortage

The FMC is looking into Chinese control of containers and equipment to move them. Most containers and chassis are produced in China. So says Carl Bentzel, an FMC commissioner.

China certainly has a large stake in production of both containers and chassis. There are three state-owned firms in China that dominate container production. Even with elevated prices recently, it is still about the same cost to buy a new container in China for the voyage to the US, or to recycle one from the West Coast of the US. Even if you would rather recycle an empty container, the ocean shipping firms can affect that balance by refusing to pick empties up at say Long Beach or Los Angeles, or delay their transit by long enough to cause headaches for those who need them by a certain date.

If empty containers build up in the US, tying up chassis as well, that’s a form of industrial pollution. Having to spend large sums for storage yards rather than getting them back to China is an environmental cost that should not have to be borne by US local governments and citizens.

It’s certainly worth an investigation and perhaps some action by the US government.

John Gallagher, Washington Correspondent Thursday, May 6, 2021

US regulator probing China’s role in container shortage – FreightWaves

Softening spot rates could mean ‘days are numbered’ for ad-hoc carriers

Spot rates for container shipments might be coming down from the stratosphere. There are a few indications, such as Xeneta’s XSI short-term index from Asia to North Europe.

If short-term rates really are coming down, what is going to happen to many new ocean shipping entrants in the trade from Asia? These new firms offer regular shipments with no blanking, faster transits, calling at less congested ports for faster unloads, status monitoring, and good communication.

Most of these firms have a limited number of smaller ships. The conjecture here is that they cannot survive if rates drop back to reasonable levels.

I think this position underestimates the value of on-time and reliable service. Many shippers will pay to get out of the bottleneck system the alliances are running, with large ships calling at large congested ports, and frequent delays of service, including simply canceling voyages if they aren’t full enough. You can’t have a viable business if you’re only on-time 30%-40% of the time. Lots of customers will choose another way.

We have already seen large container shippers such as Amazon, IKEA, and Costco choose dedicated service with captive vessels for some of their cargo. If it works well, that could expand, leaving the major alliances with less cargo to carry.

Interestingly, the large ocean carriers have a new name for what they are doing. Canceling a voyage is not to be called ‘blanking’, but rather ‘sliding’. Whatever you call it, it’s a disruption in service supposedly guaranteed.

By Mike Wackett 11/02/2022

Softening spot rates could mean ‘days are numbered’ for ad-hoc carriers – The Loadstar